A Silent Majority

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Article Tools

All is normal in the City of Santa Barbara. Anglo candidates, many from out of town, get the endorsements and ample financial support. For the one Latino candidate, no endorsements (not even a symbolic endorsement from elected Latino officials) and no money. In true Orwellian fashion, he has almost become a non-candidate.

At least one out-of-town candidate has a good idea: district elections. That would produce one, maybe two, Latino councilmembers and thereby bring the council closer to the idea of “we the people.” But then the local committees would lose their stranglehold on Santa Barbara politics as the districts asserted their independent influence and authority-precisely how the county, the state, and the federal government function together.

The 2010 census may well put the Latino population in the city close to 50 percent. (It was 35 percent in 2000). It is not unrealistic to suppose that in the foreseeable future someone may well ask the elected officials of Santa Barbara, to paraphrase Mohandas Gandhi: How does a future minority Anglo population hope to continue to govern a city with a majority Latino population? - Alberto Pizano

Several thoughts come to mind upon reading this: The idea of district elections is a good idea whether or not the racial polemic is added. The other thing is that it is disturbing that in a place where 50 percent of the people are of a certain ethnicity, not one person of that ethnicity serves in a major elected position. Having said that, pointing this out only shows that the problem exists, the important thing is that we dig down deep and ask *why* no people of Mexican descent are in public office in Santa Barbara. If systemic racism is behind the issue the author raises, why isn't it being exposed? What *is* the reason?

Another thing I must address is the idea that the only way Latinos/Mexicans/Hispanics/whatever the acceptable term is can make progress is by outnumbering all other nationalities. By merely saying "we're going to be the majority so you better take notice of us" (to paraphrase what I've been hearing for decades) not only ascribes racism to many people who are not racist, but also alienates those who would normally not think along racial lines.

Yes, statistics show a dramatic increase in our population and it's mainly from immigration from Mexico. Unless self-examination and self-criticism (which as the foundation of the 60's civil rights movement) is included with the desire to improve oneself among this increasing demographic, the problems from which they are trying to escape in their country of origin will continue to follow them up here and be a problem for themselves, their children and the rest of the population.

Is it that the Santa Barbara Hispanic demographic has no historical basis for a singular political identity. Is it that this group has been convinced that one, and only one, of the political parties truly represents them, and therefore they remain in lock step with whomever that party places on the ballot? Or is it political laziness...who knows.

I don't know. But if the above is the case then the Hispanic population of Santa Barbara is doomed to experience the same failures that African American communities have suffered under by being predominantly represented by the Democratic party for decades. Let alone the assumption, by the dems, that Hispanic Americans will always vote the way they are told too.

There are few ethnic communities that have the same qualities as do Americans of Hispanic decent. Strong family ties, an incredible work ethic, a desire to use the free market to better themselves, a strong religious foundation, with a firm belief in the sanctity of life.

Conservative values with a mix of social equality. Wow, I just described a traditional American, neither left wing nor right wing. A "Goldie Locks" citizen. Not values commonly found in today's democratic candidate.

Well I don't know about you, but if a political leader rises from within the Santa Barbara Hispanic community that believes in freedom, with a strict interpretation of the Constitution...well then they would have my vote.

jcrdan -- you're exhibiting the wishful thinking of McCain/Bush Republicans about Hispanic values. You should take a look at the Telles and Ortiz study from UCLA -- it found that 3rd and 4th generation Latino immigrants supported racial preferences and bilingualism more strongly than the first generation. Further, educational performance improvement stalled out at the 3rd generation and assimilation was very weak even by the 4th.

If affirmative action/preferences and multiculturalism are now Republican values, there is no point in having two parties.

Lastly, your point about the "strong work ethic" among Hispanics is rather tiresome. Doing one's homework and studying also represent hard work -- by these criteria many Asian immigrants are working far harder than Hispanics. And we're not allowed to talk about the success of white immigrants due to their hard work, as all right-thinking (or Independent-thinking) people know their success is only due to their white privilege.

revsionist, you totally missed the point. The underlying theme is that any demographic can have political power through the electoral process. You can walk in the weeds of my discussion, and hope that I take your bait, or you can look at the original post. Daniel Petry

Just because someone is Latino or Latina doesn't entitle them to an endorsement. I fully supported Ms Uribe on her merits, but would not support Cruz for his lack of merits, none of this having to do with ethnic provenance. I do agree that it would be much better for the council to reflect the makeup of the city's population.

Economic refugees from a country whose politicians are all Mexicans might be excused for not rising en masse to seat paisanos in local government. Striclty speaking, though, either preference would be prejudice.

"...educational performance improvement stalled out at the 3rd generation and assimilation was very weak even by the 4th." -revisionist- Very good point, which I will address.

The*real* culprit (since someone is to blame) are the s--t disturbing primarily *white* folks who think that "taking down The Man" is the ultimate noble cause and they see the poor of any race as their playing cards in these debates. These are the self-loathing people I used to see at school board meetings who were endlessly apologizing on behalf of their fellow whites for injustices committed long before any of us walked the earth. These are the *educators* who decided it's in the best interest of all to separate Mexican...oops, I meant to say "Latino" (has a more socially activist sound to it) from every other nationality and make it easier for them to get through the twelve-year Puppy Mill of the public education system.

The problem is *not* Mexican culture, it's the people who insist on a different standard for them.

billclausen, I like your turn of phrase, and I quote, "use the poor of any race as their playing cards in these debates." I could not agree more.

What Alberto fails to understand is that political power is actually quite easy to obtain. In most countries it is done from the barrel of a gun, in ours, it is done through the ballot - at least for now. Inequities will always exist when humans are involved in any decision. But that's the real power of our Republic. Inequities are the combustion that drive the pistons of power. The fuel is the individual.

If Alberto Pizano wishes to change the political landscape then he should stand up, take a position, and place himself in front of the people...and stop whining.

But be forewarned Alberto, as Winston Churchill once said -on the qualifications desirable for a politician, "the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."

Thank you Daniel. I would add that a parallel story is the Cesar Ch¡vez Charter School article where the whole concept of the school is the idea that if one is of a certain ethnicity, they must be treated as special needs students.

There is a big difference between recognizing that racism exists and dealing with it and talking about being "anti-bias" and "culturally affirmative" (as the article I reference states) while harping on hypothetical differences. The so-called social justice movement of today ignores the two important issues of the true civil rights movement which is equality and bringing people together. Today it's a de facto "you're people did this to my people and you owe me" attitude.